Calvin vs. Arminius

[Guest Car54WhereRU]

Car,

I was trying to be humorous. Sorry if I upset you.

Mark

Hey Triple 7,

I'm not up set, humor just doesn't transfer well on a computer. I am starting to get your drift now, saw another post were you said you were trying to be funny. Got it. No offence taken.

Car54

[Mark777]

Car,

That was a close one! You are right, humor doesn't translate well over the computer. I have argued the same thing as you over many pages - I guess that was the joke.

The poll on this thread only allows for two positions. I think there is a third position not covered by the theologians of the past. I am 100% that third position.

Mark

[Guest Car54WhereRU]

Car,

That was a close one! You are right, humor doesn't translate well over the computer. I have argued the same thing as you over many pages - I guess that was the joke.

The poll on this thread only allows for two positions. I think there is a third position not covered by the theologians of the past. I am 100% that third position.

Mark

Sorry for the confusion. I totally agree with you on that. As if there are only two positions. Ever notice how a Calvinist thinks that if you don't believe the "doctrines of grace" like he does you are automatically a Arminian? Funny, but I was predestined before the foundations of the world to NOT be a Calvinist. I don't care if they disagree with me just so long as they don't burn me at the stake.

Thanks.

Car54

[Mark777]

Q: How many Calvinists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: None. They would understand that it was God's providential decree that they be in the dark and would not want to interfere with God's decree. Thus they would discuss the theological implications of continuing to function in the dark.

Mark

[SavedOne]

Not sure why it is troubling and needs to be seperated into one or the other by Calvin or us regarding those preselected and those saved by the "Grace of God" through Faith in choosing the death and resurection of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of our sins. By the very first time I read the the whole Bible through once I understood that the Word of God clearly stated for his purpose and by his will some were preselected . (I never questioned it or frankly felt the need to try and understand My God's reasoning or purpose).

At the very same time I realized that through the Bible from Genisis to Revelations, the bible says, (presents), and showed that all others were afforded sufficient Grace to decide freely whether to accept Jesus as their Savior.

I really don't see why either is exclusive since Grace is involved in Preselection as well as Grace,(opportunity), through the freedom to chose Christ as our Saviour for those of us that may have been either Preselected or Saved through our choice. ESPECIALLY SINCE THE SAME SAVIOR DIES FOR THE SINS OF BOTH AND IT IS JESUS DEATH AND RESURESCTION THAT SAVES BOTH. Furthermore it appears that to include only one of the two without the other is unbiblical, incorrect , and quite frankly not understandable to me. Since by discarding or disregarding either we would be discarding part of God's word as incorrect. Something I am not prepared to do now or for Eternity.

As usual I welcome any Biblical correction and won't return to debate or defend my statements since my purpsoe is to learn from others response after there own Study of the bible and considering this subject, and to share what I have learned.

[st. Worm]

quote:

"At the very same time I realized that through the Bible from Genisis to Revelations, the bible says, (presents), and showed that all others were afforded sufficient Grace to decide freely whether to accept Jesus as their Savior."

SW:

That's not correct at all. In fact most of the people who lived never heard the gospel preached to them and never heard of Jesus. To say all were presented the gospel and the right to make a choice is just not accurate. The Billy Graham crusade ever made it to China or the jungles of South American and Africa in the first milleniem. Of course, the "free will" Arminians never really have a good answer for this harsh truth.

While it is true that Romans says God had made himself known to us through nature and our own conscience, our sinful nature prevents us from knowing him and therefore we stand guilty as charged.

[SavedOne]

Yup your absolutely correct : I believe below is how I should have said it thanks for the correction;

At the very same time I realized that through the Bible from Genisis to Revelations, the bible says, (presents), and showed that all others were afforded sufficient Grace to allow them to freely choose whether to obey God in the Garden of Eden ,or to not serve God. To obey the rules of the Covenant of Abraham from it's time and Chose Jesus Christ as their Savior from his time.

[st. Worm]

horizoneast question:

And doesn

[st. Worm]

horizoneast quote:

"Are you suggesting the Calvinist explanation of election is without difficulty? Do you maintain that God does all the choosing and the free will of man has no part or place in his salvation?"

SW:

Difficulty? What does that mean? And yes, the Bible clearly teaches that the Spirit must make us "born again" before we can even begin to see the kingdom of Heaven. Salvation is completely by God's grace and man's so-called free will has absolutely nothing to do with it. So indeed, God does the choosing. You did not answer my question if you find that disturbing to you.

[hopper]

Edited April 17, 2008 by hopper